Respect for Dead - Mopologist Inconsistency?

[_Gadianton]

A few weeks ago I did a post criticizing this embarrassing apologetic from FAIR arguing that Jews are being anti-Mormon for requesting that Mormons don't do temple work for their ancestors. Now the apologists are trying to figure out what the "dumbest" anti-Mormon argument is, and Scott Lloyd is touting just how stupid and anti-Mormon it is for Jews, Catholics, or anyone else to request their ancestors be left alone. While you'd think Ed Decker suggesting skulls line the inner sanctum of the temple could have few rivals, indeed, for LLoyd and a few other apologists agreeing with him, it would be primarily the great religious nations of Jews and Catholics, people not known for anti-Mormonism in the first place, who ride on the back of the anti-Mormon turnip truck in the minds of apologists. Scott now has a sig line that authorizes anyone to perform any ordinance no matter how evil on his behalf after he dies.

But this morning in a random flash of inspiration while reading Chris Smith's blog, it occurred to me that the apologists are very inconsistent in their "once you're dead, who cares?" attitude. While it hasn't been a discussion of late, I recall the apologists becoming bent out of shape with critics requesting the church to open its historical archives. In the apologetic move to thwart critics' attempts to get the truth on Mormon origins, they argue that the reason the archives have to be sealed is to protect the privacy of personal journals. To the extent this may be a valid argument, more consideration involving others' ancestors should be made for sure by the Church. But either way, the apologists are left with pretty blatant inconsistency in their apologetics, once again.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Excellent work, Dean.

One could further apply this idea to the current smear campaign against Paul O by DCP (who, unless I miss my guess, fancies himself the modern day Nibley). If it is acceptable, nay demanded, to disrespect what a person was in life (Mother T, Catholic) by symbolically making (all caveats included) them something else in death (Mother T, polygamous wife), then why is it objectionable to make Nibley (a firm defender in life) into something else at death (a doubting Mormon, a jerk, a molester, etc.)?

The Mormon insistence on temple work is odd. Respect involves considering what the other party wishes, not what you feel they should receive. One is personal and the other makes them an object. If someone objects to having their ancestors "turned Mormon", it is needful you leave them alone. It is not needful to browbeat them, argue with them, or term them a bigot.

[_Nimrod]

Scott [Lloyd] now has a sig line that authorizes anyone to perform any ordinance no matter how evil on his behalf after he dies.

So be it. After Scott dies, we'll schedule the trial for his excommunication.

[_karl61]

"Scott now has a sig line that authorizes anyone to perform any ordinance no matter how evil on his behalf after he dies"

It will be cool for each religion to decide what it wants to do with Scott after he dies. Since relatives wishes are not listen to I propose the "shoot Scott's body out of a large cannon into the sky" ordinance to help him on his way.

[_Heresy]

I think a bigger inconsistency is that they insist on telling Jews that they shouldn't feel outrage at baptism.

I've tried telling Mormons that they shouldn't feel outrage at temple ceremonies on Big Love. They don't seem to think I have the right to tell them what to feel.

They feel outrage when people tell them they aren't Christian, yet they love to tell the polygamists that only LDS are Mormons, not FLDS.

Who made Mormons the ones to decide what everyone is to feel and think?

[_harmony]

Who made Mormons the ones to decide what everyone is to feel and think?

Depends on who you ask. Some Mormons would answer: "God." Others would answer: "the prophet". Still others would answer "Joseph Smith". Absolutely no TBM Mormon would answer truthfully though: Mormons appointed themselves the arbitrator of all things spiritual.

And that's the truth of it, until someone actually uncovers the lost revelation.